Cited by 44Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsMind wandering and attentionPsychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction

A distinction between two instruments measuring dispositional mindfulness and the correlations between those measurements and the neuroanatomical structure

Open access
Zhuang, Kaixiang, Bi, Minghua, Li, Yu, Xia, Yunman, Guo, Xuehua, Chen, Qunlin, Du, Xue, Wang, Kangcheng +3 more·2017·Scientific Reports

Abstract

The most widely used measurements of mindfulness are the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS) and the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ). However, controversies exist regarding the application of these scales. Additionally, the neural mechanisms of dispositional mindfulness havebecome a topic of interest. In the current study, we used surface-based methodology to identify the brain regions underlying individual differences in dispositional mindfulness in a large non-clinical sampleand compared the two instruments for measuring the dispositional mindfulness. The results indicated that theMAAS scores were significantly associated with increased greymatter volumes in the right precuneus and the significant association between the precuneus and depression symptomatology was mediated by MAAS scores. Regarding the FFMQ, the Describing, Nonjudging, and Nonreactivity facets were selectively associated with the cortical volume, thickness and surface area of multiple prefrontal regions as well as the inferior parietal lobule. Importantly, Describing mediated the association between the dorsolateral PFC volume and the cognitive reappraisal strategies of emotion regulation. These resultssuggested that the MAASwere mainly associated with self-awareness, while the FFMQ facets were selectively involved in emotion regulation, attention control and self-awareness. Therefore, this study characterized the differences in inter-individual variability between the two typical measurements of dispositional mindfulnessand the correlations between those measurements and imaging analyses.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41598-017-06599-w

Cites

71 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Only one study has established a relationship between the Nonjudging mindfulness facet and brain structure; a positive association was found between Nonjudging and surface area in the superior prefrontal cortex in a non-clinical young sample.

    “To the best of our knowledge, only one study has established before a relationship between this specific mindfulness facet and brain structure; more precisely, a positive association was found between Nonjudging and surface area in the superior prefrontal cortex in a non-clinical young sample [11]”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhuang, K., Bi, M., Li, Y., Xia, Y., Guo, X., Chen, Q., Du, X., Wang, K., Wei, D., Yin, H., & Qiu, J.
Affiliations
  • Southwest University (CN)
  • Chongqing City Mental Health Center (CN)
  • Hunan Normal University (CN)
Corresponding author
  • Yin, Huazhan
  • Qiu, Jiang
Venue
Scientific Reports
Published
2017-07-24
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
6252-6252
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2739393349
Cited by
44
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 3
FWCI
5.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Greater South Information System
Funders
  • Chongqing Postdoctoral Science Foundation (Xm2016044, Xm2015037)
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (31671125, 31470981, 31571137, 31500885)
  • China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2015M572423, 2015M580767)
  • Natural Science Foundation of Chongqing (cstc2015j-cyjA10106)
  • Fok Ying Tung Education Foundation (151023)
  • Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (SWU1609177), SWU1 509451, 31500885, 31571137)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Mind wandering and attention
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
Keywords
trait mindfulness, Mindful Attention Awareness Scale, Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire, instrument comparison, individual differences, precuneus, gray matter volume, depressive symptoms, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, inferior parietal lobule, emotion regulation, cognitive reappraisal, self-awareness, attentional control, cortical thickness, surface area
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain, Brain Mapping, Depression, Emotions, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Personality, Young Adult, Mindfulness

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review